dopingverfahren-verteidigung

/sportrecht:dopingverfahren-verteidigung

Purpose

The skill accompanies the defense in sports law doping proceedings from the first notification of the A sample to the CAS appeal. It identifies the applicable regulatory framework (WADC + NADC + association statute), examines the requirements of strict liability violations (WADC Art. 2.1) and develops a defense line via Art. 10.5/10.6 WADC (No (Significant) Fault). It also addresses the parallel criminal proceedings under § 4 IV AntiDopG (self-doping by elite athletes) and the constitutional consequences (Art. 12 GG, ban as occupational prohibition).

Inputs

Sport, association, competition class (elite sport within the meaning of § 4 VII AntiDopG [unverifiziert]?)
Substance / method of the WADA Prohibited List (S0–S9, M1–M3)
A-sample notification: date, B-sample deadline, NADA letter
Procedural status (hearing scheduled? association decision issued? CAS deadline running?)
Defense theory (contamination via dietary supplement, prescription error, TUE application, procedural defect)
previous whereabouts compliance, prior doping violations
if applicable, parallel investigations by the public prosecutor's office under AntiDopG

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides WADC articles, NADC provisions, the relevant association statute, leading CAS and BGH decisions (Pechstein, Mutu) as well as standard literature (Adolphsen, Pfister/Steiner on AntiDopG, Holla). Drafter drafts the hearing statement to NADA and – insofar as necessary – an outline of the CAS appeal in judgment style; addresses parallel proceedings under § 4 IV AntiDopG. Reviewer checks the 21-day appeal deadline, the right to a hearing, the B-sample deadline and the proportionality of the restriction of occupational freedom.

Process

1. Identify the applicable regulatory framework

Which version of the WADC (usually 2021 ff. [unverifiziert]) and of the NADC is incorporated into the specific proceedings via the association statute and the athlete agreement? Arbitration clause in favor of CAS valid under the Pechstein line (BGH, judgment of 07.06.2016 – KZR 6/15, BGHZ 210, 292 [unverifiziert – prüfen]; ECtHR, Mutu and Pechstein/Switzerland, Nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10 [unverifiziert])?

2. Elements of the offense under WADC Art. 2

WADC Art. 2.1 governs the presence of a prohibited substance in the sample as a strict liability violation (strict liability). Additionally relevant:

Art. 2.2 Use or attempted use
Art. 2.3 Refusal of sample collection
Art. 2.4 Whereabouts violations (3 missed tests / filing failures within 12 months)
Art. 2.5 Tampering
Art. 2.6 Possession; Art. 2.7 Trafficking; Art. 2.8 Administration; Art. 2.9 Complicity; Art. 2.10 Prohibited Association

3. Burden of proof and B sample

The anti-doping authority bears the burden of proof for the violation to the comfortable satisfaction standard (higher than civil proceedings, lower than criminal proceedings). The athlete may B sample apply (as a rule within 7 days after notification of the A sample — depending on the association). A missed B sample = tacit acceptance of the A sample result ([unverifiziert]).

4. Procedural course

A-Probe positiv
  → NADA ergebnismanagementliche Mitteilung
  → Athletin: Stellungnahme + ggf. B-Probe-Antrag
  → Anhörung beim zuständigen Verbandsorgan (1. Instanz)
  → Verbandsschiedsgericht / DIS-Sportschiedsgericht (2. Instanz, idR Pflicht)
  → CAS Lausanne (Berufung, Frist 21 Tage WADC Art. 13)
  → ggf. Aufhebungsantrag Schweizer Bundesgericht / ZPO § 1059
parallel:
  → StA-Ermittlung § 4 IV / V AntiDopG

Obligation to provide a hearing (WADC Art. 8): violation = rule-of-law deficit → sanction challengeable. 🔴 BLOCKER, if the sanction was imposed without a hearing.

5. Mitigation of sanctions WADC Art. 10

Art. 10.2: basic sanction 4 years (intentional) / 2 years (not intentional)
Art. 10.5 No Fault or Negligence: complete elimination — very narrow requirements (the athlete bears the burden of proof that she did not violate even the slightest duty of care)
Art. 10.6 No Significant Fault or Negligence: reduction by up to half; for "Specified Substance" / "Contaminated Product" further reduction possible
Art. 10.7 Substantial Assistance; Art. 10.8 Admission / Agreement
Art. 10.9 multiple violations

Defense line in the case of contamination of a dietary supplement: concrete proof of the source of contamination required (analytical proof of the supplement batch); abstract argument does not satisfy CAS case law ([unverifiziert – prüfen in cas.tas-cas.org]).

6. In parallel: criminal proceedings § 4 AntiDopG

§ 4 AntiDopG:

Paragraph 1: administering / giving / placing on the market prohibited substances – up to 3 years' imprisonment / fine
Paragraph 4 (self-doping by elite athletes): self-doping by an elite athlete within the meaning of § 4 VII in conjunction with § 4 III AntiDopG [unverifiziert] – up to 3 years' imprisonment / fine; special provision, which abolishes the former impunity of self-doping
Paragraph 5: commercially / as a gang / danger to health – up to 10 years

Interface:

sports law proceedings and criminal proceedings run independently (no ne bis in idem between a sports law ban and state punishment according to the prevailing view [unverifiziert]).
Statements in sports proceedings can flow into the criminal proceedings — coordination of statements is a defense counsel's duty (§ 43a BRAO).
TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) has effect under sports law, not automatically under criminal law.

7. Consequences under fundamental rights

A ban can be a de facto occupational ban within the meaning of Art. 12 GG (professional athlete: existential economic consequence). Review of the content of the ban's duration against the standard of proportionality; CAS must examine proportionality (settled case law [unverifiziert]). GDPR Art. 9 (health and biological data) for ABP steroid profile etc.

8. Whereabouts obligations

Registered Testing Pool (RTP) – reporting obligation 24/7 availability of a 60-minute slot per day. 3 missed tests / filing failures within 12 months = violation of Art. 2.4 WADC. Defense approaches: technical errors in ADAMS, force majeure, duplicate filing.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute and regulations

§ 2 AntiDopG (concept of doping)
§ 3 AntiDopG (prohibitions)
§ 4 AntiDopG (criminal provisions, in particular para. 4 self-doping)
Art. 12 GG (freedom of occupation)
Art. 9 III GG (freedom of association and coalition)
§§ 1025 et seq. ZPO (arbitration proceedings)
WADC 2021 (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-code) – in particular Art. 2, 7, 8, 10, 13
NADC (National Anti-Doping Code, NADA) [unverifiziert – aktuelle Fassung prüfen unter nada.de]
CAS Code (https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html)
DIS Sports Arbitration Rules (https://www.disarb.org)
WADA Prohibited List (annual version)

Commentaries and handbooks

Adolphsen, in: Adolphsen, Sports Law, Xth ed. year, chapter on anti-doping marginal no. 1 et seq.
Summerer, in: Fritzweiler/Pfister/Summerer, Practical Handbook on Sports Law, Xth ed. year, chapter on anti-doping marginal no. 1 et seq.
Pfister, in: Pfister/Steiner, Sports Law Commentary, Xth ed. year, § 4 AntiDopG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Vieweg/Steinbach, Sports Law, loose-leaf, as of year, chapter on anti-doping
Holla, Practical Handbook on Sports Law, Xth ed. year, chapter on CAS proceedings

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online/cas.tas-cas.org/hudoc.echr.coe.int]`)

BGH, judgment of 07.06.2016 – KZR 6/15, BGHZ 210, 292 (Pechstein – arbitration clause effective, but subject to review of content)
ECtHR, judgment of 02.10.2018 – No. 40575/10 and 67474/10 (Mutu and Pechstein/Switzerland – public hearing CAS)
CAS 2009/A/1912 (Pechstein Award)
CAS 2008/A/1644 (Mutu)
BVerfG on sports jurisdiction (settled case law) — check case number specifically

Output format

STELLUNGNAHME — Anhörung NADA / Verbandsschiedsgericht
Athlet/in: <Pseudonym>   Verband: <…>   Az.: <…>

I. Sachverhalt
   - A-Probe: <Datum>, Substanz: <…>, Konzentration: <…>
   - B-Probe: <Antrag ja/nein, Ergebnis>
   - Verfahrensstand: <…>

II. Anwendbares Regelwerk
    WADC <Fassung> + NADC + Statut <Verband>
    Schiedsklausel: <Prüfung Pechstein-Linie>

III. Verstoßtatbestand
     Art. 2.1 WADC: Anwesenheit (strict liability)
     Beweislage A-/B-Probe: <…>

IV. Verteidigungslinie
    1. Verfahrensmängel (Anhörung, B-Probe-Recht, Chain of Custody)
    2. No Significant Fault Art. 10.6 WADC
       - Kontaminationsquelle: <konkreter Nachweis>
       - Sorgfaltsmaßstab: <…>
    3. Verhältnismäßigkeit Sperrdauer (Art. 12 GG)

V. Parallel: § 4 IV AntiDopG
   - Spitzensportler-Eigenschaft: <…>
   - Vorsatzfrage / Beweisverwertung
   - Aussageabstimmung mit StA-Verfahren

VI. Fristkalender
    - B-Probe-Antrag bis:    <Datum>
    - Stellungnahme bis:     <Datum>
    - CAS-Berufung 21 Tage:  <Datum>
    - § 1059 ZPO 3 Monate:   <Datum>

VII. Risiken / offene Punkte
     🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VIII. Quellenverzeichnis

----------------- bei CAS-Berufung zusätzlich -----------------

BERUFUNGSSCHRIFT (Skizze) — CAS Lausanne
Appellant: <…>   Respondent: <Verband / NADA>

A. Anträge
B. Sachverhalt
C. Rechtliche Würdigung
   – Verfahrensmängel
   – Art. 10.5/10.6 WADC
   – Verhältnismäßigkeit
D. Beweismittel
E. Sprache, Schiedsort, Kostenhinweis

Risks / typical mistakes

Missed B-sample deadline → A-sample is deemed acknowledged.
Missed CAS deadline 21 days → ban final and binding, application to Swiss Federal Supreme Court to set aside only within narrow limits.
Abstract contamination claim without analytical proof of the supplement batch → Art. 10.6 WADC fails.
Statements in sports proceedings without coordination with criminal defence counsel → self-incrimination within the meaning of § 4 IV AntiDopG.
Hearing disregarded → sanction deficient under the rule of law; CAS regularly sets it aside.
Validity of arbitration clause accepted uncritically → Pechstein line missed; objection of invalidity under BGH [unverifiziert] possible.
§ 4 IV AntiDopG overlooked → criminal consequences for the client not pointed out; attorney liability.